The interesting thing is he has an exact 37-marker match with another Norwegian in the R-P312 and Subclades Project: Ellefsen, ancestral surname Andersen, from Nordland, Norway. Ellefsen has already been tested for M222 and is M222-.

Ellefsen is P312+ but hasn't ordered L21 yet. Given his exact 37-marker match with Christopherson, there is good reason to believe he will be L21+, too.

Right now four out of the five Norwegian P312s who have tested for L21 are L21+. If Ellefsen is also L21+ (which looks highly likely), that would mean five out of six Norwegians are L21+.

The interesting thing is he has an exact 37-marker match with another Norwegian in the R-P312 and Subclades Project: Ellefsen, ancestral surname Andersen, from Nordland, Norway. Ellefsen has already been tested for M222 and is M222-.

Ellefsen is P312+ but hasn't ordered L21 yet. Given his exact 37-marker match with Christopherson, there is good reason to believe he will be L21+, too.

Right now four out of the five Norwegian P312s who have tested for L21 are L21+. If Ellefsen is also L21+ (which looks highly likely), that would mean five out of six Norwegians are L21+.

Hmmm . . .

And I just got word over on the FTDNA R-P312 Forum of a new L21+ out of Jurva, Finland.

The interesting thing is he has an exact 37-marker match with another Norwegian in the R-P312 and Subclades Project: Ellefsen, ancestral surname Andersen, from Nordland, Norway. Ellefsen has already been tested for M222 and is M222-.

Ellefsen is P312+ but hasn't ordered L21 yet. Given his exact 37-marker match with Christopherson, there is good reason to believe he will be L21+, too.

Right now four out of the five Norwegian P312s who have tested for L21 are L21+. If Ellefsen is also L21+ (which looks highly likely), that would mean five out of six Norwegians are L21+.

Hmmm . . .

And I just got word over on the FTDNA R-P312 Forum of a new L21+ out of Jurva, Finland.

Interesting!

I saw it on the DNA forum. Apparently he hasn't yet tested for M222, but a positive result seems unlikely.

No, apparently it was Shaemus Nilsson O'Backström and his Traveling Celtic Band, along with their opening act O'Praeger's Irish Klezmer Band.[/quote]________________________________________________________________________

Hey there's that Goldenhind guy stepping in his own trap again! By the way, the name is Seamus, not Shaemus. Nach bhfuil Gaeilge agat?

The fact is, you don't know where the origin of L21+ is, I don't know where the origin of L21+ is, no one knows where the origin of L21+ is. It is all guess work. It is all conjecture. If L21+ originated in Germany and migrated to Ireland, it could have originated in Ireland and migrated to Germany. It could have originated in any of the areas where it is now found and migrated in any number of ways. We don't know. We may never know.

L21+ started with one man and from there it expanded. Can you tell me where that one man was born? Can you tell me his status in life? Can you tell me what his living conditions were? Can you tell me if a war was going on in his area at the time of his birth? Did his family leave his are of origin even before he had a son, or sons? You have no idea, yet you strut around as if you do. You're simply not man enough to admit you don't know.

[.[/quote]If you had checked the other forum, you could have read why they all have to be immigrants from Ireland.[/quote]

Attila O'Toole and his hordes of Irish Huns? [/quote]________________________________________________________________________

At one time you were a man who stood up against those who wanted to define a people and a culture by a Haplogroup. You railed against people who told other people what they were and what they could be because they were from a certain area or a certain haplogroup. You also were a man who decried the actions of others who went to the moderators. What happened to that man?

If you wish to mock my theory that L21+ originated in Ireland, do it to my face. My biggest reason for coming up with the theory was to stop the ridiculous idea that people had all the answers. Alan Reilly has admitted to trying to "fit" his thories with archaeology and DNA results and he has found he can't. What kind of ego did he have that made him think he could? Why would someone of his stature try to "fit" anything anyway?

No person and no culture can be defined by any Haplogroup. In Western Europe we all seem to have varrying percentages of the same Haplogroups. I am an Irishman who has little or no DNA difference from many Englishman. You, yourself, could be from any number of cultures. Proud, yes, I'm proud and happy to be a first generation Irish-American, but there is nothing unique or special about me or any Irishman genetically. And I'm no more Irish than any other Irish guy because I'm L21+

Will you Rich, will you delete this like the "crybaby" you so often called Faux. You are no better than him, Rich, and that is a shame. I have printed a copy in case you do have it deleted. Others need to know that use the same tactics as you denounce.

I was being lighthearted, Miles, not trying to offend. "Attila O'Toole" was a simple joke.

We don't know enough about L21 yet to say exactly where or when it first arose.

Personally, I do not see how it could have originated in Ireland. I have never heard of any large movements of population from Ireland to the European continent that would account for the number of continental L21+ results we are getting for such a new SNP.

On the other hand, many scholars over the years have written that the original Celts spread from the Continent to the British Isles, and some of them have included the Beaker folk as Proto-Celts. We know they did not originate in Ireland but on the Continent.

L21 was very successful in Ireland, but I think it is a big mistake to believe it first arose there.

This is my very last attempt to explain my position to you.1. I have said before I have no idea where L21 originated. There simply isn't sufficient evidence to answer the question.2. I have also said that while it is not impossible that L21 originated in Ireland, there is no real evidence to support it and a fair amount of evidence against it.3. There is archaeological evidence of a migration in the late Neolithic from the Rhine area into both the British Isles and Scandinavia. This is consistent with what we are seeing about the distribution of L21 in Europe today. There is no evidence, archaeological or otherwise, of a migration from Ireland to the continent, and especially to Scandinavia.4. My comment on O'Prager on the DNA forum was not directed to you, but rather to Farris who attempted to explain L21 in Scandinavia as the product of a late migration, and even made the absurd suggestion that Nielsen (one of the most common names in Scandinavia) could have come from an English migrant named Nelson.You are obviously very emotionally invested in your theory that L21 originated in Ireland. My interest in L21 is strictly academic, as I am neither Irish nor L21. However the onus is on you to prove your theory, not on others to prove it's impossible.I am in no way being inconsistent in my position, which has always been that one shouldn't jump to conclusions about connecting R1b subclades with particular cultural groups based on inadequate evidence. Rather it is you who is now acting like Faux, proposing a theory that is inconsistent with the current evidence and then reacting hysterically to any criticism of your pet theory.You have now descended into name calling. If anyone's post should be deleted, it is yours.I do however give you credit for getting at least one thing correct: I do not know how to spell Shaemus.

I think that we need to consider the remote possibility that the Rhineland group and Scandinavian group were founded by a back migration of a single man respectively just a few thousand years ago. I have no idea if it's true or not, but surely to heck we can't throw it out just because it feels wrong or there isn't sufficient archeological evidence to support it.

We've humored R1b decent from Paleolithic European cave painters for years; I think we can also humour the "back-traveler" theory for a while, too.

I think that we need to consider the remote possibility that the Rhineland group and Scandinavian group were founded by a back migration of a single man respectively just a few thousand years ago. I have no idea if it's true or not, but surely to heck we can't throw it out just because it feels wrong or there isn't sufficient archeological evidence to support it.

We've humored R1b decent from Paleolithic European cave painters for years; I think we can also humour the "back-traveler" theory for a while, too.

Who knows, there might be something to it.

Is it possible? Of course.

Is it likely? Doesn't seem so to me, but who knows?

Commercial dna testing is overloaded with persons of British Isles descent. The Continent is under-represented, yet we are getting a pretty steady flow of L21+ there, and L21 was only just discovered (for all practical purposes) in October.

Significant movement between Europe and the Isles has been from the Continent into the Isles and not the other way around.

Single L21+ founders moving from Ireland (or Britain) to the Rhineland, France, Scandinavia, etc., and having the sort of impact we are seeing seems a real stretch.

I think that we need to consider the remote possibility that the Rhineland group and Scandinavian group were founded by a back migration of a single man respectively just a few thousand years ago. I have no idea if it's true or not, but surely to heck we can't throw it out just because it feels wrong or there isn't sufficient archeological evidence to support it.

We've humored R1b decent from Paleolithic European cave painters for years; I think we can also humour the "back-traveler" theory for a while, too.

Who knows, there might be something to it.

Vince, There's no need for anyone to be "humoured". I don't think you have ever really read what I have written about my theory.

My theory is that L21+ could have originated in Ireland, just as it could have originated in any of the European countries in which it is now found. I believe many, including Alan Reilly, who has recently admitted that he has been trying to "fit" genetics to his archeaology, overlook the smaller migrations of families in favour of the "mass migation" and invasions.

As you somewhat snidely put it, one man is responsible for L21+. That one man could have been born in Germany, France, Norway, Ireland , Britain, none of us can say for certain. Nor can we say what that man did once he was born. Did he stay put and have children? Did he migrate on his own by ship? Was his land beseiged by war? Was there famine? So many variables exist for what he or his male descendants could have done with their lives.

In any of the "east from the Continent" theories that I read, it was this original man's descendants who were part of some large scale movement that brought L21+ to the Isles. Why? Why did it have to be a large scale movement? Is it because you are trying to "fit" igenetics to archaeological evidence? What about the smaller migrations of families which I mentioned? I live in the U.S. state of Oregon, and I have read many books on early settlers, just in the small county in which I live. The backgrounds are as varried as you might imagine. Some came from around the horn from the east coast, some traveled by wagon train, some came up from California after the Gold Rush. No one movement settled Josephine or Jackson counties. Some were "old time Americans", some were from Germany, some were from Ireland, some were from England, and they all came sepaerately. Migrating families. Their reasons for migrating were all different and varried as well. Yes, now we have written recors of some of these families, but not all. I would say that there is little archaeological evidence of their moves. Suppose they had moved 3000 years ago, how would we know of their move.

If L21+ originated in Ireland, who is to say that some of the original man's descendants didn't move to the Continent. Certainly, if the 3500 year estimate is correct, there was trading by sea in 1500 b.c. Do you reeally think that all movement was from the Continent to the Isles with no families every leaving the Isles to seek a better fortune on the Continent? No young men who worked the ports in Ireland ever dreamed of adventure and left their home behind for adventure? As I have said, Ireland is not like The Eagles' song "Hotel California" where "you can check out any time you want, but you can never leave". There is no reason to believe that every person who ever came to Ireland stayed. There appears to be far too much one way thinking going on. People, either seperately or in a gorup, could have migrated east from the Isle, and I'm sure they did. Some of those people could have carried L21+ with them. Why the term "back migration"? How about we just start calling all movement "migration"; migration to , migration from.

Vince, There's no need for anyone to be "humoured". I don't think you have ever really read what I have written about my theory.

My theory is that L21+ could have originated in Ireland, just as it could have originated in any of the European countries in which it is now found. I believe many, including Alan Reilly, who has recently admitted that he has been trying to "fit" genetics to his archeaology, overlook the smaller migrations of families in favour of the "mass migation" and invasions.

As you somewhat snidely put it, one man is responsible for L21+. That one man could have been born in Germany, France, Norway, Ireland , Britain, none of us can say for certain. Nor can we say what that man did once he was born. Did he stay put and have children? Did he migrate on his own by ship? Was his land beseiged by war? Was there famine? So many variables exist for what he or his male descendants could have done with their lives.

In any of the "east from the Continent" theories that I read, it was this original man's descendants who were part of some large scale movement that brought L21+ to the Isles. Why? Why did it have to be a large scale movement? Is it because you are trying to "fit" igenetics to archaeological evidence? What about the smaller migrations of families which I mentioned? I live in the U.S. state of Oregon, and I have read many books on early settlers, just in the small county in which I live. The backgrounds are as varried as you might imagine. Some came from around the horn from the east coast, some traveled by wagon train, some came up from California after the Gold Rush. No one movement settled Josephine or Jackson counties. Some were "old time Americans", some were from Germany, some were from Ireland, some were from England, and they all came sepaerately. Migrating families. Their reasons for migrating were all different and varried as well. Yes, now we have written recors of some of these families, but not all. I would say that there is little archaeological evidence of their moves. Suppose they had moved 3000 years ago, how would we know of their move.

If L21+ originated in Ireland, who is to say that some of the original man's descendants didn't move to the Continent. Certainly, if the 3500 year estimate is correct, there was trading by sea in 1500 b.c. Do you reeally think that all movement was from the Continent to the Isles with no families every leaving the Isles to seek a better fortune on the Continent? No young men who worked the ports in Ireland ever dreamed of adventure and left their home behind for adventure? As I have said, Ireland is not like The Eagles' song "Hotel California" where "you can check out any time you want, but you can never leave". There is no reason to believe that every person who ever came to Ireland stayed. There appears to be far too much one way thinking going on. People, either seperately or in a gorup, could have migrated east from the Isle, and I'm sure they did. Some of those people could have carried L21+ with them. Why the term "back migration"? How about we just start calling all movement "migration"; migration to , migration from.

No need to humour, Vince, but perhaps a chance to consider.

Thanks, Miles

Miles,

That was the intent of my post. I HAVE read your theory, and coupled with Tim Janzen's intraclade TMRCA figures, it really is bugging me. I do have a hard time believing it and think it's rather unlikely, but I truly do think we need to consider the possibility of an Irish origin for L21 and a later founder effect for the Rhineland group. There appears to be a 500-1000 year spread for Rhineland after Ireland, and I'm really not sure what could account for that. One thing is for sure, we do need a helluva lot more continental data, particularly in Germany, Belgium and France.

Tim Janzen compared a bucket load of British and Irish to a thimble full of continentals. His post on Rootsweb was unfortunate because it was about a year or two premature and did not even include all the continental L21 we knew about at that time.

A similar result could be had with nearly any y haplogroup found both in Britain and on the Continent: just select a big data set of Brits and Irish and strictly limit the number of continentals and - voila! - that y haplogroup originated in the British Isles.

L21 isn't even a regular part of FTDNA's Deep Clade-R test yet. British and Irish guys, who already dominate commerical dna testing, are ordering it from the "Advanced Orders" menu or from EA as S145 because they figure they have a good chance of getting a positive result. Thus the testing for it is not evenly distributed geographically.

In the early days of testing for S21 (U106) there were a handful of guys who claimed it originated in Britain and crossed into the Continent via "Doggerland." At the time, British positive results were staggering, but results from the Continent were just trickling in, and those from the Continent seemed so uniformly "Frisian" that it appeared the Brit-origin advocates might be right.

Heck, in the early days of dna testing, what was known as "R1b" seemed to have emerged from an Ice Age "Refugium" in Iberia, simply because there is a lot of "R1b" there now and the Basques were assumed to be "Paleolithic survivors."

We're still living with the legacy of that idea. One bumps into its emaciated, undead corpse everywhere on the internet where y dna is dicussed.

(My own mention of "R1b" reminds me that what we are calling simply "L21" might yet be parsed into a number of downstream subclades parallel to M222.)

We're up to - what, 22 or so now in all of continental europe. Only seven of them have 67 marker haplotypes done, with an age range between 2700 and 3300 years. Did we just get dumb lucky on the original three 23andMe guys to get the most extreme variance spread?